Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:48:28.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Other-repetition sequences in Finland Swedish: Prosody, grammar, and context in action ascription

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Martina Huhtamäki ,
Jan Lindström  and
Anne-Marie Londen
Martina Huhtamäki
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Finland
Jan Lindström*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Finland
Anne-Marie Londen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Finland
*
Address for correspondence: Jan K. Lindström Dept. of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian, and Scandinavian Studies, P.O. Box 24, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines other-repetitions in Finland Swedish talk-in-interaction: their sequential trajectories, prosodic design, and lexicogrammatical features. The key objective is to explore how prosody can contribute to the action conveyed by a repetition turn, that is, whether it deals with a problem of hearing or understanding, a problem of expectation, or just registers receipt of information. The analysis shows that large and upgraded prosodic features (higher onset, wider pitch span than the previous turn) co-occur with repair- and expectation-oriented repetitions, whereas small, downgraded prosody (lower onset, narrower pitch span than the previous turn) is characteristic of registering. However, the distinguishing strength of prosody is mostly gradient (rather than discrete), and because of this, other concomitant cues, most notably the speakers’ epistemic positions in relation to the repeated item, are also of importance for ascribing a certain pragmatic function to a repetition. (Repetition, other-repetition, action ascription, prosody in conversation, repair, epistemics, conversation analysis, interactional linguistics, Finland Swedish)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 49 , Special Issue 4: Other-Repetition in Conversation across Languages , September 2020 , pp. 653 - 686
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We are deeply indebted to Giovanni Rossi for his guidance and extensive comments on our work on this article. We would also like to thank Rasmus Persson and Richard Ogden, who commented on earlier versions of our text, as well as three anonymous reviewers for very helpful feedback. In addition, we wish to thank Madeleine Forsén for making a number of new recordings for our corpus and excerpting cases of potential interest in that material. This study was supported by the Finnish Center of Excellence in Research on Intersubjectivity in Interaction (Academy of Finland/University of Helsinki). We thank the research program Interaction and Variation in Pluricentric Languages (funded by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, grant nr. M12-0137:1) for access to data on Swedish service encounters.

References

REFERENCES

Aho, Eija (2010). Spontaanin puheen prosodinen jaksottelu. Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki dissertation.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Trevor, & Walker, Traci (2013). Managing problems of acceptability through high rise-fall repetitions. Discourse Processes 50(2):107–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, & Weenink, David (2019). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.46. Online: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina (2009). Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs 76(2):121–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (2004). An intonational typology of Swedish. Speech prosody, Nara, Japan, March 23–26, 2004. ISCA Archive: http://www.isca-speech.org/archive.Google Scholar
Curl, Traci (2005). Practices in other-initiated repair resolution: The phonetic differentiation of ‘repetitions’. Discourse Processes 39(1):1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Simeon; Manrique, Elizabeth; Rossi, Giovanni; & Torreira, Francisco (2016). Timing of visual bodily behavior in repair sequences: Evidence from three languages. Discourse Processes 53(3):175–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gårding, Eva (1998). Intonation in Swedish. In Hirst, Daniel & Cristo, Alberto Di (eds.), Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, 112–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heldner, Mattias (2001). Focal accents: f0 movements and beyond. Umeå: Umeå University dissertation.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Maxwell Atkinson, J. & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1):1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtamäki, Martina (2012). Prosodiska drag i frågor: En undersökning av Helsingforssvenska samtal. Språk och stil 22(2):153–84.Google Scholar
Huhtamäki, Martina (2014). Intonation och funktion hos frågor med icke-interrogativ syntax: En undersökning av Helsingforssvenska flerpersonssamtal. Puhe ja kieli 34(4):147–73. Online: http://ojs.tsv.fi/index.php/pk/article/view/48633.Google Scholar
Huhtamäki, Martina (2015a). Frågor med stigande och jämn slutintonation i Helsingforssvenska samtal. Folkmålsstudier 53: Meddelanden från Föreningen för nordisk filologi, 79–93.Google Scholar
Huhtamäki, Martina (2015b). The interactional function of prosody in repair-initiation: Pitch height and timing of va ‘what’ in Helsinki Swedish. Journal of Pragmatics 90(December 2015):48–66. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 35(4):418–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin (2015). The inter-section of turn-taking and repair: The timing of other-initiations of repair in conversation. Frontiers in Psychology 6(250):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin, & Torreira, Francisco (2015). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes 52(4):255–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard (1993). Focus particles. In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, Arnim, Sternemeld, Wolfgang, & Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 978–87. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kuronen, Mikko, & Leinonen, Kari (2008). Prosodiska särdrag i finlandssvenska. In Marianne Nordman (ed.), Svenskans beskrivning 29, 161–69. Vasa: Svensk-Österbottniska Samfundet.Google Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee (2016). Information and affiliation: Disconfirming responses to polar questions and what follows in third position. Journal of Pragmatics 100:59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan; Huhtamäki, Martina; & Londen, Anne-Marie (2020). Noun phrases in other-repetitions: Observations of Swedish talk-in-interaction. In Ono, Tsuyoshi & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), The ‘noun phrase’ across languages: An emergent unit in interaction, 93–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Norrby, Catrin; Wide, Camilla; Lindström, Jan; & Nilsson, Jenny (2012). Finland Swedish as a non-dominant variety of Swedish: Extending the scope to pragmatic and interactional aspects. In Muhr, Rudolf (ed.), Non-dominant varieties of pluricentric languages: Getting the picture, 47–60. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10):1752–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Rasmus (2015). Registering and repair-initiating repeats in French talk-in-interaction. Discourse Studies 17(5):583–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Rasmus (2017). Fill-in-the-blank questions in interaction: Incomplete utterances as a resource for doing inquiries. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(3):227–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillet-Shore, Danielle (2012). Greeting: Displaying stance through prosodic recipient design. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(4):375–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita, & Heritage, John (2013). Preference. In Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 210–28. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reuter, Mikael (1992). Swedish as a pluricentric language. In Clyne, Michael (ed.). Pluricentric languages, 101–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas (2014). The phonology of Swedish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2013). Epistemics, action formation, and other-initiation of repair: The case of partial questioning repeats. In Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, & Sidnell, Jack (eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding, 261–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D., & Kevoe-Feldman, Heidi (2010). Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction 43(3):232–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saari, Mirja (1995). Synpunkter på svenskt språkbruk i Sverige och Finland. Folkmålsstudier 36: Meddelanden från Föreningen för nordisk filologi, 75–108.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1997). Practices and action: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23(3):499–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.; Ochs;, Elinor & Thompson, Sandra A. (1996). Introduction. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schenkein, Jim (1980). A taxonomy for repeating action sequences in natural conversation. In Brian Butterworth (ed.), Language production, vol. 1: Speech and talk, 21–47. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret (1996). Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair initiation. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in conversation. Interactional studies, 231–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (1996). On repeats and responses in Finnish conversation. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan (2008). Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair. Journal of Pragmatics 40(2):333–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1989/2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vatanen, Anna (2014). Responding in overlap: Agency, epistemicity and social action in conversation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.Google Scholar
Walker, Traci C., & Benjamin, Trevor (2017). Phonetic and sequential differences of other-repetitions in repair initiation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(4):330–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue, & Kitzinger, Celia (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69(2):150–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokomori, Daisuke; Yasui, Eiko; & Hajikano, Are (2017). Registering the receipt of information with a modulated stance: A study of ne-marked other-repetitions in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 123:167–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar